SC
 

I thinks its clear that evan BASSA dont have a clue how many members they currently have! There is a lot of talk in the other place of crew have have resigned from BASSA from some considerable time being issued with papers for the recent consultative ballot.

I think this is one of the reasons that they are putting off further ballots at this time as they are very open to another legal challange as to its validity

dilpome
 

All I know is what I've either guessed or been told.

If there are 7000 ( or 6500, whatever) strike pay claims to Unite why are only 3500 being deprived of ST? It does not add up. Simple. Have BA mistakenly not removed ST from thousands of strikers? No. Safety Concerns thinks that numbers are wrong due to incompetence. I think it is pure skullduggery.

If there were approx. 10000 members at the time of the last ballot, why did only approx. 50% vote? It was BA's final offer on a matter of fundamental interest and importance to BASSA's members. BASSA were enthusiastic and voluble in urging its members to vote against but only 35% of members did so? Er, I simply don't believe it. Why belong to a Union and not vote on a matter like this? 10 maybe 20% I could explain to myself but not 50%.


You will see that the number of voters against is roughly equal to the number of cc with ST removed - 3500 or thereabouts. That makes sense doesn't it?

cym
 

Yes they are in a fix but not through lack of knowledge.

With approx. 3500 militants ( read ST has been removed ) who would vote for IA the only way a majority could be claimed was if the membership dropped to below 7000, and an authoritative yes vote would need numbers to drop way below 50% of cc population. Yes, a real fix.

mrpony
 

Totally agree BASSA are in real trouble - and guess what BA know how many subcriptions they are deducting from staff salaries!

My feeling is that if they do attempt to carry out a ballot for IA, BA will just let it happen and then go for an injunction making both BASSA and Unite look like fools (again).

They have had 7 months to get their act together on this front and still dont have a clue. Well worth paying your subs for if your still a member

BASSA membership numbers
 

This is obviously a key issue at this stage in this dispute, and several posters have pointed out blatant inconsistencies in some of the numbers bandied about. Some have even suggested that BASSA themselves don't have a clue.

I am prepared to accept that their admin is in complete chaos, but I would have thought that they have a pretty good handle on how much money is going into their bank account each month, particularly if the allegations of commission payments are true. So, they should know how many members they have, even if they don't know who they are.

Therefore, if there is any overstatement on their part, it seems to me it would be more likely to be due to porkies than ignorance.

I think this is more about spin and presentation than anything else. You have to remember who the BASSA updates are for - their own membership.

BASSA are locked in what they believe is a life and death struggle with BA and that Willie is set upon destroying them. They have run a series of lack lustre strikes that have not achieved their goal of forcing the company to cave in to their demands. They see that the strike has cost their members money and staff travel benefits and that they are no further forward in their aims. This is now a "marathon" - well that maybe true and if it is BASSA must ensure that the support that they have remains solid.

These missives are aimed at the XXXXers, they are an attempt to keep them onside. They are moral boosters designed to make XXXXers feel like they were part of a mass movement, that 7000 out of 9500 members of BASSA took strike action. If they were to let slip that there was only 3500 members who had the courage to risk their jobs and ST despite many more voting for strike action, they run the risk that what support there is will start to crumble. DH is writing for an ever reducing core of stalwarts - he has to keep them onside or it is all over, and the defining event of DH's career will have been the emasculation of BASSA, he will have overseen the demise of his own union. This is something he and BASSA has to avoid at all costs - hence the purple prose.

There is also, I suspect, an element of incompetence as well. BASSA has a track record of inefficient book keeping and poor data base maintenance.

To be honest, I don't know how this is going to be concluded. There are many things that have been predicted, but haven't happened:

a) Unite hasn't cut BASSA lose
b) BA hasn't "gone nuclear" and imposed an entirely new contract on crew
c) BASSA hasn't imploded (or at least we cannot say it has for definite)
d) The strikes did not collapse (BA may have been able to run the majority of services, but there was still a sizeable minority that went on strike)

As evidenced the numbers of crew voting no to the latest proposal, there is still a sizeable minority holding out, whether through personal determination or loyalty to BASSA.

There are so many unknowns at the moment (how many non union members accepted the offer, how many crew are still in BASSA etc).

Assuming BASSA manages to retain collective bargaining rights, if BA wants to put through contractual changes, it has to do that with BASSA and regardless of support for further strikes, I can't see BASSA conceding defeat and reaching agreement.

From Safety Concerns

"So he drags this out to make them sweat and then a compromise is found to avoid any further strikes.

Would Bassa survive in the aftermath of such a scenario?
Would Unite be damaged by this?"

I think the pivotal word in there is compromise. BA have offered compromise with regards ST, BASSA say its unacceptable. BASSA cannot in my opinion survive this dispute, it has entrenched it position to such a depth it cannot move. It has so far caused damage not only to BA but more importantly its members and any reversal of its position would quite rightly see injured members shouting for answers as to why this happened and what recompense they can seek against their union.

I heard mention of BASSA using the word marathon for this dispute. To me this points to a unrealistic view of the real world. Union members cannot go on strike indefinately, cannot pay for full fare tickets to commute to work. The longer the dispute goes on the less relevant any threat of IA will be. Unite will not be harmed, it will still be there as a union representing other branches at BA.

I don't know if it would be legal, but if i was BA i would be "leaking" that the same offer as has just been sent out will be available again to anyone not in the union. That way it gives those still in the union a chance to vote with their feet. Either leave the union and take the offer, or stay and support an increasingly marginalised minority and suffer the consequences. BA cannot let this drag on.

Such an action would be totally illegal.

SC..
 

Hmm. From what I can see other posters here are tackling your points in good faith and the above statement is not justified by anything I've read.

You say you 'are airline'. It is welcome, in this 'non-airline' forum to get the occasional insight from the coal face. But what you are bringing, as possibly the most active contributor of late, is not so much insight, as subjective opinions, backed up by a certain obstinacy that invites response. So, I don't think the persecution message or the premise behind it are justified.

IA 2007
 

read this for a laugh. Holley's quote is foretelling the future
BA cabin crew accuse T&G union boss of 'selling out' over strike - Business News, Business - The Independent


Bassa needs you the membership to be behind it and not fragmenting amongst a torrent of personal abuse. We have enough enemies out there without fighting each other.

@Snas.

Thought as much:ouch:. If there are any moderate BASSA members left in the union, and I assume there must be some ( the votes for accepting the offer numbers) I can only imagine the quandary they must be in regarding continued union membership.

JohnoWhiskey

You are correct, my own partner thought long and hard about leaving, the process commencing with the 12 days announcement, she had abstained from that ballot.

She held membership to allow her to cast a no vote in the re-ballot that followed and then left, I know many members retained membership specifically so that they could vote against further IA and are still members – the result of this being that they were unable to accept the offer as mailed out by Mr Francis a week or so back. This is unfortunate, not BA’s fault as such as they are legally prevented from attempting to encourage employees to leave (or switch) a union.

My partner’s situation (I’ll be brief as I have been banging on about it enough recently) was that she left in Feb but has been fighting to get the union to acknowledge same ever since, she doesn’t seem to be alone in this regard.

The acceptance of the offer however was basically a self declaration that you were not a union member on the date, which she was able to honestly make.

I’m left to wonder how many wanted to sign but were unable to or indeed how many were unable to but signed anyway?

For my part BASSA is a bad union, end of. She's better off out. The very idea that any of the fools that I have come to know so well since Christmas should ever have to represent her at any form of hearing would fill me with dread.

I have to say that my own inclination would be to jump ship as soon as possible. While the worry and uncertainty of being without a union would undoubtedly cause me a few sleepless nights..the worry at what path the union were going to lead me down would be the greater fear.

Does the PCCC offer support to CC in such a situation or even able to assuage any fears of "being on your tod"?

Diplome

You have stated several times in the thread that you do not work for BA and I have no reason to doubt you.

What I said is that you sound like a PR for BA.

Therefore no insinuation that you work for BA.

From that other thread:
When BASSA does finally implode, it will be most interesting to see whether Holley and Everard are parachuted into cosy jobs with Unite, or if they become collateral damage.

In Germany, the Unions have long had a policy of 'jumping around a bit' but everyone knows that they will come to a good, workmanlike agreement. Consequently, the Unions are still respected by both sides AND still a force to be reckoned with.

The British Unions have, I suggest, always made such a big thing of taking control and taking over the whip, that they were likely to have overshot from the outset. Whilst British Unions had a great deal to overcome and certainly were needed to redress the balance - they have lost the battle. NOT because of govt action but because they have lost public support. I think that the public would still support a strike by nurses but never by well paid cabin crew. Also, let's not re-hash how well or badly paid they are, they have a job with privileges. That is enough!

Who is this public support we talk of and what is his carrier of choice now?

4923
 

...that is the number of strikers WW has now given as definitive, according to the other thread.

Not the wistful 7000 being put about the media by Holley and Simpson :rolleyes:

A large minority but still sub-critical.

Yes that seems realistic. Why only 3500 reject ba offer I don't know. What the Bassa do they do now!

These are the numbers:

So 64% of Unite members voted to strike, and 42% of Unite members actually went on strike.

It is a minority, but it is still a sizable minority.

in other words....
 

56% of all CC voted for strike
37% of all CC went on strike

These are stunningly high numbers, make no mistake about it.

WW did well keeping the fleet flying, but more than 1 in 3 of all BA CC staff went on strike, this will take years to restore. Perhaps WW was being hindered by BA's lousy HR past.

Let s hope BASSA dies quickly it will help the healing process not having DH stirring the pot....

and bare in mind that BASSA membership has reduced significantly over recent months.

Given their lack of numeric skills even their own website shows a leaking membership it so reality must be somewhat more depressing for them

I am most certainly not anti union but in its present form BASSA is a throwback to the 1970's. Maybe time for Unite to insist they start building the branch up form the grass roots up, that may help usefull negotiations going foward and let Duncan focus on his toms!

Agreed. In more ways than one, in this dispute, BA is paying the price for previous managerial failures. The company may never get over this.

ld
 

The first step to overcoming a problem is admitting you have one - well done Willie - keep up the focus on this area

Anyone know why only 3500 lost staff travel if 4900 went on strike?
Have BA "not processed" those that returned to work?

I don't think there was ever any formal confirmation of the number that lost staff travel. 3,500 was, I think, always a guestimate.

so what do these numbers do for BASSA?

Duggie - where are you?

Not quite right.You are forgetting that Union members are the public, it would be folly to think otherwise.
Also, the 'Public' in the sense you refer will always whine and moan when the strike affects them but support it when it doesn't.
Working in the Travel industry, whether it be Pilots, CC, Engineers, Airport staff etc. you will never get support. Striking and hoping for it is stupid. The press will kill you for spoiling holidays or stifling business. No one will give a toss what the reason for strike is.
This is the very reason why strike action should always be a last resort and fought over something that would make huge differences for the striker or their families.
The members must believe and be on board. It is the job of the local reps to inform the FTO's of the mood locally and the support for the action. This includes views of non Union staff.
I don't think any of that applies to the BASSA dispute.

LitebulbsAs I posed the point, may I suggest that - for the most part, they no longer have a carrier of choice. Their choice is the cheapest. For short haul that is certainly the case. I suggest that because I hear people going to airports further away to get a lower fare, not always considering the extra time and costs of getting to the other airport, when the destination is the same!

I'm sure that regular travellers do have their favourites and BA still have many fans but they are facing the usual competition on all fronts. Short haul by specialists and other legacy carriers; ICT packages and the new independent traveller who eschews all packages; Long haul has discount carriers too and the recession has taken another swipe at all levels. When folks will go from EDI to JFK vis CDG (as per another current thread) and they could also go via AMS or DUB or KEF - just for starters - then any carrier is going to struggle, not just one like BA with their particular problems.

So, mostly, folks will take price first and everything else second.

Especially in tourist class cabins, where the product and service have little to differentiate the carrier.

Lotpax

You are so right. Coach is coach no matter which airline you choose to fly. The only differentiation between airlines are in the business and first class products. Pax flying in economy have but a basic expectation of service. If they get fed and a soda they are happy. The expectations in J or F are what separate the children from the players.

MCO,

Coach is coach could not be further from the truth when comparing BA or Virgin with AA or US Airways.

We have used all four in the last 12 months and I can assure they are absolutely worlds apart, so much so we are using BA again this year for our holiday to Denver and will continue to do so whenever possible as the value for money, comfort level and the service they provide far exceed many other carriers for not that much more money.

SFP
Couldn't agree more. Used all of them, BA for me.

And here is a take on shorthaul choice: YouTube - ‪FASCINATING AIDA - Cheap Flights‬‎ :)

Unite's duty
 

I do hope that those numbers give non-striking crew some greater sense of support when they next board a plane as crew.

Just over 1/3 of crew actually went on strike, two thirds did not go on strike - no matter what individuals might say when on board, and excluding lgw and lcy, less than half of the lhr crew went on strike, more than half of lhr crew worked normally all the time.

Isn't it Unite's duty now, given that the other Unite branches are completely against this strike, to act for the majority of BA CC and BA Unite members??

The tiny minority in this cult continue to threaten the prosperity of Unite's members who work for BA. Shouldn't Unite now formally abandon the junta that run it?

AO
 

5000 is not a tiny minority.

Agreed Litebulbs, and given that those 5000 would likely support the current BASSA leadership and represent over half of the total 9554 members BASSA claim on their website, it would seem that change in BASSA leadership will not come anytime soon.

This dispute has a long way to run yet.

Pride
 

There is too much of the above. I wonder how difficult it would be to look at last years proposals, prior to the imposition? New contracts, rather than new fleet, I think it was. Then just compromise on the industrial agreements; well an unbalanced compromise, due to BA's commitment to recoup the cost of IA.

Everything has to be explored.

JEM60Sure - for regular travellers! If folks use long haul once a year or once every three? If they buy a package, are they going to find out in advance who the carrier is and have that as a make/break? I suggest not.

A number of the web sites that collate fares and show you them in price order do not tell you who the carrier is. So, in coach, there may be differences but money will rule for many, many pax.

On the wider front, 'brand loyalty' is something that is not so important to younger generations. Sure, they might have loyalty to 'showy' brands of clothes but to airlines? Nah, it's a badge of pride to pay as little as possible and have horror stories to relate of what you endured.